Syrian kid bullied in Huddersfield

This is simply not true in law.

His prompt retraction and take-down may make a case less likely, or damages lower if the case is pursued, but you're absolutely wrong if you look at the defences against libel set out in the law. If you look at the explanatory notes to the 2003 Defamation Act: "There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”)".

Or some advice from a law firm: "Can you defame someone accidentally? Yes. A defendant's intention is generally irrelevant. The real issue is what the average reader would have understood the words to mean and whether they would cause reputational harm. You can accidentally defame someone by being careless in what you say. You may also be liable for simply repeating someone else's defamatory statement (e.g. by re-tweeting a defamatory statement) if your republication causes the claimant harm."

Most of the time it's just not worth it for people to take action, given the cost of bringing one (no legal aid for it), which is why this stuff happens all the time on Twitter when any of us might fall into the same trap, and people aren't sued. But this isn't the run of the mill case - Robinson is a high profile figure with zillions of followers unlike you or I, so the defamatory statement has far more reach and is far more damaging than if you or I posted it. Given his recent 950k home purchase he's also got assets that are worth going after. So whether this one will go the distance I don't know, but they could if they wished to - hence his hasty retraction, and in the wrong circumstances anyone else could find themselves in the same position.
“Man of the people” fleeces his sheep followers to buy a £1 million quid house then puts his foot in his gob and gets rinsed by a crowd funded refugee’s lawyer.

Sweet, sweet justice.
 


Didn't say that at all

It's a direct quote. But whatever.

He won't get prosecuted either.


Like I said....


Because you can't sue someone for telling a lie based on misinformation. He believed it to be true at the time and has been set up by someone. He's since clarified and redacted.

I hope it goes to court but he won't get sued for that. Imagine the result? How many more people could be sued if everytime they say something they believe to be true but turns out isn't they can be sued?


:lol::lol::lol:
 
Mother spat at a chip shop owner and called him a 'P**i terrorist' after he objected to her or her son spewing up all over the floor of his shop.

Usual suspects on the thread to be reposting unattributed rumours from some bloke on Twitter with a crusader avatar that it was justified because the shop owner had sprinkled torn up poppies on her chips instead of batter and he has jihadi links in 3,2,1...
 
No, I'm comparing the term Gammon to the term Coconut.

The fact that they all happen to be racial slurs doesn't mean I'm comparing them.


Seaham Red Star and Barcelona are both football teams, doesn't mean they are comparable :lol:
:lol::lol::lol::lol: GOLD!!

Unless I've been wooshed and you aren't saying the fact that people get red when they're angry, and that larger people sweat more whilst getting angry is racist.

 
:lol::lol::lol::lol: GOLD!!

Unless I've been wooshed and you aren't saying the fact that people get red when they're angry, and that larger people sweat more whilst getting angry is racist.
They are both terms based around skin colour. I don't know what fat people have to do with it.

Canny tucking of Tommy's no.1 fan
:oops:

It's a direct quote. But whatever.
Compeltely mis-read that. :lol:

It's still incredibly unlikely to be done in this situation.
 
Last edited:
and black doesn't equal coconut.

It's a political insult... but based around the colour of someones skin

If one is a racial slur, so is the other.
You've lost me like.

I've never heard the term coconut before but I'm guessing it's similar to 'choc ice'? In which it would be a black person acting white? Which you can effectively trace all the way back to the days of slavery with phrases like House Negro and Uncle Tom.

How on earth is that the same as calling racists gammons?

Gammons which stems from the fact they can't discuss politics without getting red, angry, and sweaty .

Genuinely excited for your response. I get that you aren't comparing them outright, but I'm really struggling to understand how you can put them in the same ball park.
 

Back
Top